Many many moons ago--in California---there was a person who restored/refurbished & performed services on BMW's. When ever the parts accumulated to the point that he could assemble a complete bike together with all the extra parts--bingo---a few extra bucks came rolling in and the whole process started over again. The bikes sold were comprised of used and cosmetically reconstructed/repainted--etc--and were hard to tell they were not new. I wouldn't be surprised if there are still some out there still racking up miles. Can this be happening still---with Nortons--Triumphs---HD's---probably so.

ggryder wrote:

This bike's fate hung in the balance. After weeks trying to assemble a complete engine from a bunch of individual ebay purchases this came along as a potential engine donor. But, "God's Teeth!" (anybody here know Ogri?) Gary

Nah, don't remember him !

I should work out at a little over $1,000 without a crank, rods or pistons, which I don't need. Probably about what complete engines have been going for on ebay right now.

Gary[/quote]


Should be lighter without them , & shouldnt pressurise the cases and leak oil like that . Probly use less fuel too . .

Back in the late seventies when my brother still had his '70 750 S (which he had traded his '69 Super Sport Chevelle w/396 & Muncie 4 spd. for it----it did have a wrecked rear quarter panel and he was having trouble getting the 1000 dollars he needed back out of it---man how time change!), anyway I was poking around in one of Houston's motorcycle junk yards looking for something or other that I needed for my Yamaha and came across a Norton engine for 25 bucks. I bought it thinking that it was a 750 Commando motor and took it home, I said to him "hell if nothing else it was worth it just for the head. Well that was the start of it for me. A year or so later I found a '69 commando frame for about 10 bucks, then a fiberglass fastback tail section painted in the same fireflake blue as his 750 fo 15 dollars (which I gave to him as an x-mas gift). Next over a long period of time came a gearbox housing an oil tank, stainless steel rear fender, timing side cover, cracked fiberglass side panels , chrome front fender and a few more things all cheap and all tucked away in boxes in the corner of the garage where they stayed. Fast forward to about 2005, my brother had long sold his Norton, I'd been married for 5 years and had two kids at that point and everytime I'd start talking to my wife about getting my Norton together she'd jump in and say "you mean PARTS of Norton" just to urk me and get me going. Then we moved again and in November 2010 I said I think I'm gonna buy another bike because it'll be quicker than starting to source all the missing parts for my basket case & she said go for it. I found a '75 MKIII that could afford (2500) I then went crazy and spent about a thousand more on parts from E-bay that I really didn't need and a few months ago bought another MKIII with a blown motor for 1000 bucks. So recently I've been asking myself if I should part out the Blown engine bike ( matching numbers) I know I can get more from that way but I really like seeing it over in the corner of the garage and thinking about which direction to take the build.......anyway I think you should find a frame.....or build one, heck... JS Motorsports has a book of plans on how to build a trellis style one you know. Cj

My 2 cents
My learned friends have pretty much made all of the good points; let me add two more.
There is a big difference between what is paid for common parts verses what is paid for hard to get parts, take a look at what cosmetically strait tach drives for early Commandos are going for verse a tach drive for a 1970 and later engine. There is also a big difference between what is paid for a random set of Commando parts verses what a correct set of Commando parts bring (matching numbers or not)
Second point is what do we mean by assembled? If I take the random collection of Commando parts and make it run and get it licensed, I have a moderately valuable rider. If I take a correct set of parts and meticulously overhaul/refinish/blue-print each assembly and go to the trouble of documenting the build I would have a machine that would bring CLOSE to what a low mileage original would bring because I could sell it to the enthusiast instead of an investors documented original. Remember the only guy that will pay top dollar for a documented original is the investor/speculator because he isn't going to use it. The enthusiast will only pay top dollar if he knows it is strait and has everything he is looking for. If the enthusiast can buy it he has to build it.

Matt Spencer wrote:I should work out at a little over $1,000 without a crank, rods or pistons, which I don't need. Probably about what complete engines have been going for on ebay right now.

Gary


Should be lighter without them , & shouldnt pressurise the cases and leak oil like that . Probly use less fuel too . .

I've been studying the arguments for the various alternative crankshaft arrangements: 180, 270, 284 and my calculations tell me that the the only thing guaranteed to vibrate less than a 360 is no crank at all.

No rods or pistons is a logical extension of Jim Schmidt's discovery that less weight in those parts equals less vibration.

Gary

Unless a bike is really rare, and Commandos are far from it, then it does not make a lot of sense to me to scratch and claw one together from oddball parts that have to be searched for unless you are going to build some custom or race-bike that is going to be completely gone over anyway.

If you want a nice original Commando then you are way ahead buying as nice a one as you can afford and saving yourself hours of hunting for parts. Then the only hours you will spend is doing the catch-up maintenance skipped by previous owners.

Guys that are into old bikes only for money are scumbags, and that certainly goes for those who take matching-numbers bikes and part them out unless the bikes are bad wrecks etc..

Going with the them of the title of this original post - what does this photo show?

Parts or a future bike?

PS - there are no wrong answers.

probably be a "great candidate for restoration" on ebay

pkeithkelly wrote:Going with the them of the title of this original post - what does this photo show?

Parts or a future bike?

PS - there are no wrong answers.

It isn't missing much, so I think it is a bike. It probably ran before it was taken apart.

rvich wrote:

pkeithkelly wrote:Going with the them of the title of this original post - what does this photo show?

Parts or a future bike?

PS - there are no wrong answers.

It isn't missing much, so I think it is a bike. It probably ran before it was taken apart.

i once was looking at an old MGB GT a few years ago- the guy selling it told me it ran good before they took the motor out - and was serious about it -haha -

pkiethkelly---I see a bike....what's wrong with me I wonder...the glass is half full !!

Stephen...get a featherbed and mount the Eng/gr bx Isolastic style..there is a good article if you google featherbed commando didn't see the isolastic mounts on that one,but it looks like it flys !! there are others out there. also seeley. Cj

pkeithkelly wrote:Going with the them of the title of this original post - what does this photo show? Parts or a future bike?

Definitely a future bike.

(not fair, as i recall you posting this before)

...of course, the then future bike ended up costing more than buying a nearly complete roller, I'll bet...

pkiethkelly, I think you should just keep it as it is . If you put a leaky engine and gearbox in that frame, it'd make a mess of those nice tiles in no time....

Stephen Hill